Could of, Would of, and the rest (Word Usage)

Could of, Would of, ...

There are some infractions against standard English usage which hardly count as infractions at all anymore, like ending a sentence with a preposition, using "will" where "shall" is correct, neglecting "whom" in favor of "who" in all cases, and splitting an infinitive. Many of these are borderline cases, and depending on how sensitive your grammar detection skills are, and how much you care about the finest details, you may or may not mind how the language has developed. However, there are some misusages that, no matter how common and widespread, will always, I repeat always make educators wince. These kinds of errors are so blatantly based on a misunderstanding that their use will certainly be noticed, corrected, and pointed out for the education of others, and the shame of the offending individual. The improper use of "of" in phrases such as "could of" and "would of" is an excellent example of this kind of mistake, and if you value your reputation in the minds of your teachers and professors, you will never get this wrong in front of them again.

I have received many emails and read some papers that had sentences much like the following: "I would of got there sooner, but I had to eat first." The meaning of this sentence is still clear to any native English speaker who reads it, because it sounds like the sentence it is supposed to be, but I am afraid a non-native speaker who has a reading but no real speaking knowledge of the language would be scratching her head at this strange construction. Why is this? The problem rests squarely on the trespassing preposition "of."

As the non-native speaker would know, English often uses the word "have" to create different verb forms and tenses. It is used to indicate a past time when it is combined with another verb, and in the cases we are discussing, it is used to create a form known as the conditional past. So, when I say something like "I should have brought an umbrella," the verb "should" is a conditional one, suggesting the possibility of some action that did not occur (but which could and should have). The verb "have" acts as a helper or auxiliary verb in this case, placing the conditional action in the past. Non-native speakers might get the verb form wrong, as it is a fairly complex one and involves making changes to three different words in the sentence, but they would not ever substitute "of" for "have."

The reason for this is that non-native speakers learn in a manner that combines text with writing, and so they see the forms of the verbs written as soon as or even before they hear them. So, they know that "have" is a word that can changes the tenses and forms of verbs, whereas "of" has no such power, and would never, ever be used in such a situation. Native speakers, on the other hand, hear the language first, and only learn to write it later. This means that we have a tendency to give priority to the sounds of words, and we have a harder time making written distinctions between words that sound the same or very similar. In this case, contractions make the confusion even easier to understand: "Could've" and "Could of" sound very, very similar if not identical in the flow of a sentence, and so it is no surprise that speakers mix the two up in their heads.

However, note that, although the confusion is understandable, it is nonetheless inexcusable, and anyone who has bothered to learn to write at all would do well to make this distinction. Any of these forms using the word "of" instead of "have" are wrong without exception, so this is one of the most straightforward and easy to remember rules of all.